What had happen' was.....: Jul 11, 2011

Tommy G Baker has written a post on Debunking Christianity in which he attempts to explain why Christians today believe Jesus is the divine Son of God when he claims that Jesus' first followers did not. I'd argue that Paul's teachings did not differ from the teachings of Jesusl or the Apostles.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Galatians 1:18-20)

What writings of the New Testament are actually from Paul? I know of no serious scholars that deny that Paul wrote Galatians. In fact you will read in any search or book that is of any reputable scholar that Galatians is authentic. Paul claims in these verses to have met James, the brother of the Lord.

Okay, finally, a point of consensus and agreement.

The mythicist position is one in which there is a claim that no historical person exists behind the myth of the Christian Christ. A mythicist must therefore go against all of scholarship and state that Galatians is a forgery. Or she must make another statement that is even harder to demonstrate. Paul is lying!!!

Just like the no rational and informed person would argue that Paul did not write Galatians, they would not argue that Jesus was not a historical person. Let's see if Paul is lying.

Now certainly we can show how wrong Paul is about claims such as a resurrection or the idea that there is a god that requires a human sacrifice. But these are his real beliefs. They are not intentional deception. If he is deluded about such things could he be deluded about something like visiting actual flesh and blood people? Kidding aside these are different categories of knowledge. We are left with whether Paul is telling the truth or he is lying.

Baker states that we can show that Paul is wrong about the Resurrection and that his sacrifice was necessary. He doesn't elaborate his point but I'll let him skate because it's not the point of his article and Paul more than ably destroys this silly notion. Instead let us focus on whether Paul was telling the truth about meeting James and at least some of the original apostles.

If he is lying we are required to prove that Paul is taking a mythological pattern found in the Mystery Cults and attempting to create a historical Jewish figure. He would also have to be lying about persecuting previous followers of the Jesus movement. But if he was making up this account then many could have challenged him. Much of his work presupposes that the recipients know some of what he claims and what has transpired.

I think we can agree with this above paragraph. We don't see such challenges made against Paul and the recipients of the epistles he wrote would have indeed been knowledgeable of what he claimed. Paul's story is also validated in external Jewish sources.

Let us assume that this passage is an interpolation as a few scholars have hypothesised[sic].

And here comes the first facepalm. There is no need to make such assumption. If you do, then you claim Paul lied without proving that he did.

Then we are still confronted with Paul's claim in another passage to have spoken to James, the Brother of Jesus, Peter and John who were disciples and knew Jesus:

Galatians 2.... Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ² I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. ³ Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴ This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵ We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. ⁶ As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. ⁷ On the contrary, they recognised that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.^[ ⁸ For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹ James, Cephas^[ and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Galatians 2:1-10

We can see that he speaks again of a historical encounter with people who supposedly knew Jesus or were in fact related to him. Finally we have Paul stating that he opposed Peter in Antioch, an event that was apparently known or at least verifiable to the recipients of Paul's letter:

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Galatians 2:11-14

We are left with one more possibility that Paul did meet with James who claimed to be the brother of Jesus but James made it up and the fact that he had a brother. Peter and John went along with it and perhaps much of Jerusalem.

And here comes another facepalm! Why would that even be a possibility and why would Peter, John, and anyone in Jerusalem back up such a story about Jesus having siblings if it were not so? We know emphatically that Jesus had siblings and his brothers did not believe in Him and were in fact embarrassed by him.

³⁰ He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
³¹ Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. ³² A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
³³ “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

³⁴ Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵ Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark3:30-35

⁵⁴ Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. ⁵⁵ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? ⁵⁶ Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? - Matthew 13:54-56

¹ After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want^[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. ² But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, ³ Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ⁴ No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” ⁵ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
⁶ Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. - John 7:1-6

These arguments of Paul are to a historical situation. The followers of Jesus were Jewish and had no teachings from Jesus that they were to stop following the Jewish Law. Why because Jesus was Jewish. He was a human brother of James. They thought that he was a great teacher ( as refelcted[sic] in Q) and a blameless man that would return soon at the end of the ages as Messiah and in the general resurrection.

First the existence of a "Q" source is conjecture at best. You have to do better than that. The Gospel according to Mark clears expresses that Jesus taught that he would be killed and resurrected. He applies the divine name to himself and does things that only God can do like claiming the authority to forgive sin. Ever read Mark 1? Doesn't look like it if you think Mark conflicts with Paul.

How do we know this? Because there are two major movements from the first century that cause many more by the second century. There is the movement in Jerusalem as pointed to by Paul and headed by the original followers of Jesus. And there is Paul who opposes their understanding of the very person they followed.

Hmmm...references? None? If Baker is still speaking of Galatians and referring to the Judaizers, then he must have forgotten about all the Gentiles who became Christians through the ministries of Philip and Peter before Paul's own conversion! The Apostles were not in their camp but they agreed with Paul!

The beliefs that we find Paul complaining about that James, John and Peter hold are the same claims that the Ebionites held until the early second century. This view was followed by Theodotus and much of the Roman Church authority until suppressed by the mythically oriented movements that viewed Jesus as God. We find this movement in Paul and the Gospel of John.

There is no proof of James, Peter, or John holding the same claims as the Ebionites. They however did agree with Paul. Here Baker seems to be making the same claims Muslims make against Paul. Do you really think Peter and James, who allowed themselves to be martyred would just stand by and let Paul misrepresent them? IF you think that, I have some swamp land on Tatooine I could sell you with George Lucas' signature on the deed!

In Paul Jesus is not yet God he is the son of God. In the Gospel of John Jesus is viewed as a god or divine in the sense of pre-existence. These late first century beliefs became even more diverse by the second century when docetism ( Christ is God but not human ) became popular and a competition in Rome against the views as expressed by Theodotus. Gnosticism also was on the rise where Jesus only appeared to be a human but was a Spirit. Another form of Gnosticsm saw Jesus as a human in which the God or Spirit of Christ came down into until the crucifixion. At that time Jesus was abandoned. Finally the Trinitarians showed up to try and account for both a human and God in one person. This occurred late second or early third century.

Let's see what Paul wrote about who Jesus is in Galatians

¹ It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. - Galatians 5:1

There is no way that Paul is suggesting that Jesus is ontologically less than God because as a Jew he wold not give glory of emancipation from slavery to anyone less that the Almighty God who brought his people out of Egypt. If one thinks that "son of God" mean "not God" they need to do more research. Might I suggest you read the work of Dr Darryl Bock for help. Clearly neither Docetism nor Gnosticism were in anyway part of what Paul and the other Apostles taught .

As we can see the easiest and most logical explanation for the information that we have is the typical and traditional critical historical view. There was a historical person that shows up in the source called Q in sayings. He is made Gentile by Mark.

Where? Major FacePalm.

Some of the competing movements have a resolution. The Gospel of Matthew is written for the Jewish Churches while the Gospel of Luke and Acts are written for the Gentile Churches ( for example James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus ).

Um Matthew, Luke, and Acts do not conflict.

Both allow for the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. But Matthew requires all of the Law to be followed. Jesus states that he has not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. Not one iota of it will ever change. For Luke and Paul, Jesus complete s and replaces the law.

Matthew does not reject Gentiles. In Matthew Jesus interacts with and heals gentiles remember?

⁵ When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ⁶ “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
⁷ Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
⁸ The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. ¹¹ I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. ¹² But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” ¹³ Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.- Matthew 8:5-12

For all the New Testament, Jesus is an "and" not a "but" To think that Paul is making up something new, means a complete and sad misunderstanding of what he wrote. He quotes from the Old Testament constantly and uses them to show Jesus is Messiah, Lord, and salvation is but through Jesus.

The Jerusalem Church produced nothing in writing because they were expecting an immediate return of Jesus. And supposedly James, John and Peter were illiterate peasants. It is after the fall of Jerusalem that any thing other than the Saying of Jesus as in Q are written about him. Mark reflects a time right after the fall of the Temple. Matthew and Luke are decades later reflecting apologetics as to why Jesus had not returned though the Temple had fallen.

That sure is a lot of hand-waving. Too bad there isn't a shred of proof offered to show that these conclusions are valid.

As the return of Jesus was delayed and delayed he became portrayed as more and more divine with salvation occurring in believing in "Him" rather than his message. His resurrection was into a Trinitarian dogma instead of a historical event. A failed Jewish teacher who had some good ideas became a mythological God whose following has caused 2000 years of superstition and bloodshed in the name of the Prince of Peace and Christian love.

Last I checked, Jesus far from failed. His Resurrection and promised forgiveness of sin through Him was preached from the beginning. And I don't mean just Mark, try Genesis. In addition the problems of 2000 years superstition and blood shed is at the feet of people not obeying what is in the Word of God not because of it.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

If Baker is wrong about Jesus not having brothers and sisters, why should anyone take any of his conclusions seriously? They should be dismissed due to their failure but not lack of imagination.

Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

What had happen' was.....

Monday, July 11, 2011

Answering Muslims: Three Things about Islam

Conservative Group Walks Back From That Whole "Black Marriage Better During Slavery" Comment - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Calvin on the Christ-less Unitarianism of Islam

God Is Real | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

FacePalm of the Day - #103 - Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Sunday Quote: Ben Witherington on the Historical Resurrection of Jesus - Apologetics 315